Category: Genetics

Anya Prince, a legal scholar and thought leader in the field of genetic discrimination, will present a new paper at Monday’s Health Law Workshop that interrogates whether gene therapies will exacerbate inequalities in health care, as more treatments enter the market. “Gene Therapy’s Field of Dreams: If You Build It, Will We Pay?” focuses on some of the many issues raised by the prices of gene therapies.Read More

The authors are right that reproductive technology isn’t open to everyone. A single cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF)—the tool that combines sperm and egg in a lab—costs 57% of the average American’s annual income in 2018. The multiple cycles it usually takes to get a baby costs upwards of $100,000. Just fifteen states make insurers cover reproductive technology. Even these often limit coverage mandates to married couples unable to conceive, thereby denying equal benefits to non-traditional families.

You recently responded to a TV advertisement by a direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing company because you wanted to find more of your relatives. The company also offered to send you your genomic data. Although not what you originally had in mind, you decided to send the data to another DTC company for interpretation to learn more about your health. Unfortunately, you were told that you are at risk for a condition you had never heard of. Even though the company sent some educational information, you quickly decided to call your doctor for more information and to start prevention or treatment.

A voluntary pool or clearinghouse model may give rise to a robust commercial ecosystem for CRISPR and could include special provisions for royalty-free research use by academics. Hence, there may be a path through the CRISPR patent jungle. But, there are many obstacles still in the way.

The revocation of Broad Institute’s patent EP2771468 reported and discussed here, marks the latest major development in a series of patent battles over the revolutionary and highly lucrative CRISPR-Cas9 technology (and other gene editing technologies) in the US and Europe.

While this is the first EPO decision in an opposition procedure concerning the Broad patent portfolio, the outcome may have implications for other related patents as the rationale for the revocation reflects a larger, systemic challenge based on the different rules regarding priority claims in different jurisdictions.

The Broad Institute is facing a formidable task in defending the revoked CRISPR patent claims in their pending appeal at the European Patent Office (EPO). Ultimately, some of the issues might still be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. However, this might require a significant amount of legal and rhetorical agility.

“The Opposition Division’s interpretation of the EPC [European Patent Convention] is inconsistent with treaties designed to harmonize the international patent process, including that of the United States and Europe.”

This was the rather strong reaction of the Broad Institute after the EPO’s Opposition Division’s (OD) decision to revoke one of their CRISPR patents. It could, however, also be argued that the case presents a simple failure of the patent applicants to comply with the long-standing European practice to apply an “all applicants” approach when claiming priority under article 87 of the European Patent Convention.

The National Institutes of Health wants your DNA, and the DNA of one million other Americans, for an ambitious project called All of Us. Its goal — to “uncover paths toward delivering precision medicine” — is a good one. But until it can safeguard participants’ sensitive genetic information, you should decline the invitation to join unless you fully understand and accept the risks.

DNA databases like All of Us could provide valuable medical breakthroughs such as identifying new disease risk factors and potential drug targets. But these benefits could come with a high price: increased risk to individuals’ genetic data privacy, something that current U.S. laws do not adequately protect. Read More

Ethical committees such as the Harvard ESCRO occasionally receive inquiries to deliberate upon the ethical implications of emerging research technologies where there is no existing or established guidance to rely upon. Deliberating in these gray areas is not a simple task, but the Harvard ESCRO has developed a general framework for navigating this ethical terrain in real time. In these instances, the Harvard ESCRO generally consults with its peer oversight bodies, reviews data from the scientific and bioethical literature and from other scientists and ethicists in the field and, from time to time, convenes symposia to broaden the discussion around such emerging technologies. Read More

Because of the decades-long struggles of the technology to live up to its hype, the term “gene therapy” has been heavily criticized for encouraging the “therapeutic misconception” and for conveying unwarranted “therapeutic optimism.” In addition, there is evidence of how clinical trial participants and investigators both overestimated benefits from research but also how research was framed as treatment. As a result, many recommended the alternative term “gene transfer” to more accurately represent the purpose and benefit of the intervention. We may never know exactly how much the use of the term “gene therapy” contributed to potential bias in perceptions of effectiveness and intent, but it does highlight the potential impact of language on the ethical conduct of research.

Similarly, the rhetoric surrounding the genetic “revolution” has been justly criticized. Our research published in Genetics in Medicine, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), suggests that researchers and advocates should not only avoid hyperbole, but also be more cautious and reflective about the use of metaphors. We asked patients in a Northern California health system to tell us what the word biobank made them think of, and received a range of notable responses. Some people associated the term with financial banks or gold mines, and others expressed suspicion of commercial motives of pharmaceutical or insurance companies for collecting and using biosamples. Others associated the term with computers or databases, and some may have been misled by the association of biobank with the concept of electronically-accessible information, saying that a benefit of a health system’s research biobank-linked database was that patients could look up personally-relevant information in it directly and therefore not have to see a doctor. Read More

Loyola University Chicago’s nationally acclaimed Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy is pleased to invite original research submissions for the annual Wiet Life Science Law Scholars Conference to be held on Friday, September 7, 2018.

The conference is designed to provide an intellectual venue for life science professors, scholars, and practitioners to convene and discuss current research and scholarship. The phrase “life science law” intends to capture diverse disciplines that involve significant issues of life science research and development, spanning food and drug law, health law, intellectual property (IP) law, biotechnology law, environmental law, administrative law, and antitrust law. Our goal is to foster recognition of life science law as a cohesive, dynamic area of legal study and strengthen connections among national life science law scholars.

Loyola is currently soliciting 750-1,000 word abstracts reflecting early or mid-stage ideas for the purpose of workshopping with other conference scholars. Modeled after successful events for law professors and scholars in other areas, we will organize scholars in topical panels of three to five authors with approximately 15 minutes allotted to each abstract presentation, followed by 15 minutes of intensive discussion with scholar attendees. Author abstracts will be distributed one week prior to the conference to scholar participants; authors may also submit draft articles for distribution. Scholars are expected to review materials of fellow panel members.

A friend and I had been vaguely entertaining the idea of ordering genetic testing kits for some time. Then, Black Friday happened. My friend called me to share that 23andMe was on sale, 50% off, for 1 more hour! Typing our credit card information into Amazon, we tossed around some half-reasoned arguments in favor of our impulsive purchases: “this’ll be a fun science experiment”, “what if we catch something preventable in time to make lifestyle changes?” and, “we really should be contributing our data to research for the public good.” Within minutes, two kits were ordered and thanks to the magic powers of Amazon Prime, these boxes appeared on our doorsteps within days. Few things in life are as exciting as receiving a mail delivery, but as we unwrapped our packages, finding the words “Welcome to You” plastered on our shiny white Pandora’s boxes, somehow our excitement began to dwindle. One month later, our boxes remain unopened.

Genetic testing is clearly something we should have given more thought before the marketing geniuses got the best of us. Here are some questions anyone considering taking a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test should answer (ideally before buying the test):